Can anyone doubt that Walter Russell Mead is now our country’s most authoritative and brilliant essayist? In a series of three lengthy columns — two of which are now out — Mead takes on and destroys any pretentions to credibility that Al Gore may still have had. They appear on Mead’s blog at The American Interest. You can read part I here, and part deux, as he calls it, here.

Let me whet your appetite by reproducing the best paragraph from his first entry. In part one, Mead takes up the issue of Gore’s well noted hypocrisy. He writes:

But you cannot be a leading environmentalist who hopes to lead the general public into a long and difficult struggle for sacrifice and fundamental change if your own conduct is so flagrantly inconsistent with the green gospel you profess. If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets. You cannot own multiplemansions. You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place.

Later he adds:

But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world. He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry. A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation. Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption. This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents.

In his second installment, Mead takes up the question of why Gore’s star has fallen so fast, and why very few people at present take him seriously — even his own previous followers. The answer, Mead reveals, is the complete failure of the green movement’s own political agenda. Mead explains:

Gore’s failures are not just about leadership. The strategic vision he crafted for the global green movement has comprehensively failed. That is no accident; the entire green policy vision was so poorly conceived, so carelessly constructed, so unbalanced and so rife with contradictions that it could only thrive among activists and enthusiasts. Once the political power of the climate movement, aided by an indulgent and largely unquestioning press, had pushed the climate agenda into the realm of serious politics, failure was inevitable. The only question was whether the comprehensive green meltdown would occur before or after the movement achieved its core political goal of a comprehensive and binding global agreement on greenhouse gasses.

That question has now been answered; the movement failed before it got its treaty, and while the media and the establishment have still generally failed to analyze these developments and draw the consequences, the global climate movement has become the kind of embarrassment intellectuals like to ignore.

As for the idea of a world-wide global green treaty, Mead comments as follows:

The global green treaty movement to outlaw climate change is the most egregious folly to seize the world’s imagination since the Kellog-Briand Pact outlawed war in the late 1920s. The idea that the nations of the earth could agree on an enforceable treaty mandating deep cuts in their output of all greenhouse gasses is absurd. A global treaty to meet Mr. Gore’s policy goals isn’t a treaty: the changes such a treaty requires are so broad and so sweeping that a GGCT is less a treaty than a constitution for global government. Worse, it is a constitution for a global welfare state with trillions of dollars ultimately sent by the taxpayers of rich countries to governments (however feckless, inept, corrupt or tyrannical) in poor ones.

The end result of his critique is that Al Gore is revealed as nothing less than a demagogue in professorial clothes, whose “method of arguing is to trumpet the science of climate change and to make ad hominem arguments against its opponents.” His method is to predict “an ever-crescendoing invocation of blizzards, droughts, locusts and floods” that “aims to stampede the populace into embracing one of the most dubious and unworkable policy prescriptions ever presented to the public eye.”

Gore, Mead concludes, “overstates what is known, disregards the inherent uncertainties involved in the study of a complex system like the climate, understates the significance of the remaining gray areas, and demagogues the science to get more out of it than his case really merits.”

The poor guy. His current essay in a recent issue of Rolling Stone is relegated to the back pages, where few will bother to find it or read it. Its editors know that to feature Gore is to lose sales. And now that Walter Russell Mead has decided to take him on, I predict that Gore will quickly hide out in the boondocks and concentrate on trying to get people to watch Keith Olbermann on his TV channel.

I, for one, look forward to Mead’s third essay on what Gore gets wrong about American democracy. It will be the final knockout.

Click here to view the 102 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

102 Comments, 41 Threads

1.
Marc Malone

Like another article wrote, everything he touches turns to feces. The Sadim touch. Reverse Midas. What a schlub.

Also, Gore did not get to preach about (the non-existent) AGW without a large core of pseudo-scientists who started the whole nonsense about AGW and who bamboozled a good many real scientists into thinking they were right. While Gore may be taken for the fool he is, there are a whole lot of people who still think there is AGW, and those people are the ones who have to be exposed to the truth. Otherwise, they will continue to vote for representatives who also think there is AGW, and then this nonsense will never go away.

Well said. Even putting the best possible face on it, supporting AGW means that the person does not take seriously his responsibility to get ALL the facts on important issues before formulating a position.

May 2011 was warmer than average? Where the hell do you live? The western US is having a very cold spring and summer so far. And seeing “AGW with their own eyes”? No, they’re believing the Lies that have been endlessly repeated. Is the climate changing? You betcha! But it’s not because of the microscopic part of the atmosphere that is man-made CO2, but rather, the sun. The sun is changing and it may be entering a prolonged and deep minimum. We’ve seen this before, in two periods known as the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. Average global temperatures dropped 7 DEGREES F in 20 YEARS.

In eighth grade I learned science is boiled down to three things: Hypothesis, Controlled Experiment and Unbiased Observation. You have forgotten that pure bedrock, Dr. Physicist.

There is no way to make an unbiased observation because you cannot devise a controlled experiment on the freaking earth! So then how do you have the absurd gall to predict an awful future when there is a 50% chance the future might be better?

Greenie “scientists” like you remind me of the Inquisition combined with street preachers hollering :Apocalypse Now”! We’re supposed to fork over our hard earned assets and lifestyle for highly dubious salvation based on faith, not science.

DrBukk, you need to keep in also the bedrock upon which (for example) the US Navy’s Admiral Titley’s founds his strategic analysis … uhhh … that’s Doctor Titley in fact … that bedrock being validated physical law embodied in well-posed mathematical relations.

Hmmmm …. shall we regard the likes of Admiral/Doctor Titley as “watermelons”? … the idea is ludicrous.

Would that be the same NOAA that has for years been systematically culling rural temperature measurement stations from their reporting? You know, those pesky rural stations that tend to report lower temperatures, due to being free from the influence of man made structures like roads and buildings, which tend to absorb and retain heat, thus inducing higher local temperatures which are not accurate indicators of climatic conditions? The NOAA that’s been skewing the numbers higher by culling more and more northern reporting stations, while retaining more southern stations?

ConservativeWander, before you launch into smearing American institutions like The Isaac Walton League, the The Boone and Crocket Club, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservancy … uhhh … it might be a good idea for yah to learn just a little bit about their history.

These folks have in mind that America’s wilderness will endure for the ages.

You can learn everything you need to know about global warming by watching the 1966 film, “Our Man Flint”. It’s a very well done spoof of the earliest James Bond movies, in which Flint (James Coburn) battles a small group of elite scientists bent on bringing about a world-wide socialist utopia by threatening the world with their weather control machine. In light of current events it’s pretty funny, and as a bonus there’s a scene poking fun at Muslim terrorists (the French Nightclub scene).

Way back in C19th Kali was appropriated ie nicked (stolen) by a group of really nasty people called the Thugee. Hence the term Thug. Most all of them were Muslims.
I’m really sorry I know this as well. I really really must get out more.

“The strategic vision he crafted for the global green movement has comprehensively failed.”

Oh, I don’t know. According to The Telegraph in the UK:

“Since he quit mainstream politics, Mr Gore’s personal fortune has risen from £1.2 million to an estimated £60 million.”

Fat Albert seems to be doing pretty well…for himself. It’s amazing how much money you can make off the Global Warming scam, especially if you have friends in the government who can forcibly separate the taxpayers from their money and then hand it over to guys like Al.

From Mr. Radosh’s article: “Al Gore is revealed as nothing less than a demagogue in professorial clothes,”

A very wealthy demagogue; even more so than his former boss whose last laugh after 8 years in office and one impeachment was, “Hah, I sure stuck it up their rear ends – dumb ass American voters…”

Thing is BJ Clinton still has a huge albatross around his neck that he can never get rid of, no safe mansions or boats to hide in and no tomorrow to look forward to.

Say whatever you will about Al Gore; call him every name in the book, the fact remains that, thanks to the ignorance of a large percentage of the population of the world he is now the one that laughs loudest of all as he pigs out on the way to the bank everyday.

Al Gore and Keith Olbermann – a couple of progressive turds slowly circling the bowl of history at a nearly unknown and seldom visited channel on cable. What a letdown it must be for The Goracle to go from VPOTUS to (almost) multi-billionaire – to…what? A shunned man!

As for Olbermann – he started out as a near nothing – a sports commentary personality I’d never heard of before – to a loud mouth at MSNBC (yes delusional) nothing to —- well —- less than nothing. Ya shoulda stuck with sports Keith – now you’re stuck with The Goracle. And he ain’t goin nowhere – and neither are you.

Al Gore, the apparent zenith of hypocrisy, is the best thing that has happened to and about the fraud of AGW. With his demagoguery and inferior intellect he continually beclowns himself and illustrates the absurdity of what he promotes. He can call the rest of us deniers and continue his campaign against strawmen and serious questioners but the fog has been lifting for the last 6-7 years and fewer believe him every day–most truly prescient beings never did. The more he talks the smaller the number who believe this scam and the more Walter Russell Reads who appear to illuminate and eviscerate the deception. Put a fork in Al Gore–he had little credibility before, he has none now. He is a joke and finished. Kudos to Mead. Now all that is needed is accelerated re-education of the self-serving dupes and the deluded. A not insignificant task given the sorry state of our schools (at all levels), but a tide fully on the flood. Hopefully some sanity will return to the scientific scaremongers and some common sense to the gullible.

Did anyone read the book by Michael Crichton about the fraud of global warming? Can’t remember the name off hand, but it was a really interesting read.
Maybe gore’s indiscretions also helped to make him look like the jerk he is. He is also in cahoots with georgie soros. Like to see him tank big time!
Our jr high showed his movie without any questions allowed.

The writing is not as strong as his usual, but as a political pamphlet it’s excellent

Michael Crichton past away from cancer too young. But we can still read his essays against global warming hysteria. Unfortunately, the danger that green extremists/progressives pose is far from over, so the essays are still very current.

His own official website (looks like) was sanitized, so not everything can be found there. See the links below to other sources.

It’s not just Gore. There’s a very predictable party line that you can expect from Big Environmental, anywhere in the world. And the really key point that Mead makes is that it isn’t science driving policy, it’s policy driving science. Any climate blog comment section eventually devolves into the same pattern; once the science debates are over, the fallback is a version of Pascal’s Wager.

IOW, the policy, like veggies, is good for you, and why isn’t important. So even if the world isn’t on fire, the solution must be pursued. Because it’s the policy that’s driving all of this, and the facts are unimportant. At this point, “the science” has been reduced to a liturgical chant. Because it doesn’t matter; what matters is the ritual and the penance.

I’ve been enjoying WRM’s series on Al Gore immensely. It’s nice to see him fail to the extent he has, but one commenter over at The American Interest did point out that all the sustainability bureaus in every local government, every university, every large corporation, is financial and human capital wasted on Gore’s hoax. He has established thousands of small victories that add up to something considerable (sorry, I can’t quantify that but I imagine someone has — shall we say a hundred billion worldwide?).

What amazes me is that anyone doing even the simplest research into Gore et al can discover their very real and close ties to the Club of Rome. These are the elitists that pushed the global warming crisis. I bet Soros is a member, as are many U.S. enviro-wacko scientists, many of whom associate with and advise the U.N. cabal. The COR has its own branch in the U.S. Their members such as Maurice Strong are Gore’s mentors and enablers on the road to global governance. They all have the same goals, but somehow NOBODY seems to talk about them or their shanannigans. Gore is a lightweight useful idiot, much like our POTUS.

Heck, if a resneck like me can begin to connect the dots; imagine the stories that would unfold if a bonafide journalist was on the job. Forget Gore he’s a mere distraction.

As PajamasMedia strengthens its commitment to willful ignorance, celebrity-bashing, and censorship, it’s worth noticing what America’s foremost journalistic institution is saying about this peculiar brand of conservatism … one reason being the high levels of recommendation this style of journalism is achieving in social media.

To be clear, Al Gore and his buddies are in this for the money. Big Al, G. Soros, et al will snag a piece of the carbon trading business, and that is where the real action is. Imagine getting a percentage of every transaction on the Chicago Board of Trade! Well, this could be bigger. The greenies don’t really care about the environment. If they did they would stick around to fix the problems created by their own follies.

hello. i disagree with the character assassination. he may be an automaton. it has little to do with the topic. privileged people would buy compliance if the technology exists. the potential corporate profits are business as usual. this direction of investment capital is opposed to liberty. solutions could be manufactured, instead of regulations imposed. if there is too much carbon dioxide: manufacture CO2 consumption devices. the science of man’s contribution to global warming is questionable. the climate change is factual. using the climate change to funnel tax dollars from the wealthier countries’ “workers”, (instead of donations), to poorer developing nations: is again political business as usual- just new names on the board of graft. i favor flat 4% federal tax. our politicians take and give away too much of our income, to personally profit at our expense. we worked for our income. we are having no say in what the federal government does with our taxes (from our income). cut the federal tax rate back to the original size of 4%. we can better invest in America, having more of our own earned money: than in corporate interests abroad. at 4%, we will have more control of their purse strings. perhaps shrinking the government pie will more quickly defeat crazy notions of greedy capitalists, and concentrate more valued dollars towards viable solutions to real proven problems. politicians are drunk on our money.

Hey, Mr. Radosh, there are no boondocks for Al let’s-all-shrink-our-carbon-footprint-except-for-me Gore! He’ll probably hide out in his $8.875 million-estate in Montecito, California, where he should be fairly comfortable with 6 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, a large pool and pool house, 6 fireplaces, etc.

I’m curious how much it will cost to heat and air-condition this spread. ‘Just another small detail in Mr. Gore’s head.

(Our Al Gore up here in Canada is David Suzuki, an expert on fruit flies — I’m not kidding — but who pretends to be a world expert on climatology. Like Gore, he has a number of properties and has talked/hawked his AGW “expertise” into million$. His motto, like Gore’s is, “Do as I say, not as I do” — all the way to the bank.)

If the green movement’s truly in decline– because the public is becoming aware that these folks are trying to push the de-democratization of the planet for a purpose whose conclusions are based on junk science, falsified science, conjecture, and a healthy case of elite egotism– well, what’s next?

I mean, their aim– statist control over every little part of our lives– hasn’t changed. So if weaponized environmentalism won’t achieve the goal of World Domination, then where will all these fascists-in-waiting go? For those of you who are Leftist Watchers, do you have any clue what they’ll hang their hats on next?

Al Gore was the last democrat i voted for. Knew nothing about him. But I was addicted to The New Republic at the time and Martin Peretz strongly touted gore. Peretz recalled Gore as his exceptionally bright student and sang his praises.

As in the case of Andrew Sullivan and others, Peretz was demonstrating that his judgement of character was directly inverse to his judgement of talent. Mentoring greatly talented and profoundly corrupt young men was Peretz’s strange passion.

AL Gore forgot a priciple tenet of success, keep you head down, apply yourself to the task and hand and most importantly follow the advise of the ancient leaders of Greece, employ someone to walk by yourside to remind you that you are not as great as those who follow you think you are. Vanity has been the downfall of many before Gore and will be for many to follow. Our current occupant of the Whitehouse is beginning to see reality……….hype without substance is hype.

On a related note I just came off of a science site where Global Warming advocates were carrying on a lively discussion about the ignorant masses who deny climate change.

Against my better judgement I posted a comment asking not whether global warming is a fact, but rather asking what do we do to resolve the problems associated with it.

The solutions that the author had posted were “…work hard to develp Nuclear Fusion, wind, solar and use less energy..”, there that should do it.

I countered the authors suggestions as mostly useless, in a very polite and professional fashion and then made my suggestions.

The attack from the other bloggers was mind boggling. Such lavish terms as ‘denier turd’, ‘stupid beyond belief’, ‘coward’, ‘rush idiot’ and other assorted hate filled diatribes came at a dizzying pace. But not one person addressed my questions or statements. Not one.

Actually I knew this would happen, but I can’t help myself sometimes. I am endlessly amazed at the left and there inability to carry on a constructive discussion. Name calling and quotes from the Gore bible are their stock in trade. Gore may be falling over a cliff, but his minions stand firm in their commitment to man made global warming. Only not unlike him they have no serious solutions for their cause and a lot of hate for humans and anyone who would dare ask a question. Gore has captured the small minds amongst us.

Searching the engineering databases for the keywords yields a ton of careful analysis … mostly in Chinese. Like the following:

Research of Low-carbon Economy and Socially Sustainable Developmentby Zhang Juan, in the Proceedings of the 2011
Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC)

Abstract: With the constantly changing of global temperatures, the conflict has become increasingly prominent between the limitation of coal, oil, gas and other conventional energy sources and increasing demands. To implement low-carbon economy will become an important strategic choice to dealing with global climate change and achieving sustainable development. So, every country in the world, especially developed countries, undertakes the international responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to lower energy consumption and carbon emissions. It becomes the core of international competition to adopt low carbon development model, promote industrial restructure, optimize energy structure, raise energy efficiency and develop clean energy. This paper starts from the question of development low-carbon economy, applies the method of theory related to practice to analyze the question which the low-carbon economy promotes economic development and transforms consumption concept. It will provide a reference for achieving economic sustainable development.

Why are these analyses coming from China instead of America?

Easy. No ideology-first American politician … and neither party … equally on the ideological left or on the ideological right … dares to voice a realistic analysis of the scientific, economic, and ecological realities associated to AGW.

You seem to take great comfort in the fact that a researcher in China extols the virtues of a low-carbon energy production model….while at the same time their government is building coal-fired plants at a furious pace. But why nitpick, you’ve found validation. Since when does a “physicist” become more convinced by written words or sentiments than concrete actions? That seems to me more like the behavior of someone driven by his ideology than the merits of an argument.

You’re assuming that these analyses by the Chinese mean they actually believe in AGW. No, it sounds more to me like they view the worldwide obsession (my word) with AGW as a potentially large market for products, equipment and infrastructure that minimize CO2 production. The Chinese, when it comes to money, are not adeologues. They are pragmatists. You want copper bracelets to cure your arthritis? What size would you like?

If you really want to reduce greenhouse gases, then remove water vapor from the atmosphere. It has a great deal more to do with GW than CO2. Why has no one proposed this? Because it’s easier to attack human activity and industry than it is to stop evaporation from the oceans, and much more profitable.

From what I can see of Boone and Crockett, is that they’re no more knowledgable about climatology than a group of inorganic chemists. So why should they be given any more weight them than, say, any randomly selected group of chemists?

Oh, and your claim about the temperatures being warmer than the past is ignoring some rather inconvenient facts. There have been much warmer periods in the past, such as the Minoan Warming period, the Roman Warming period, and two others that occurred around 5000 BC and 6000 BC as well as a broad plateau of warm temps from 7000BC to 8000BC. And I believe that the Medival Warming period was warmer than today as well. Where all of these caused by mankind’s activities as well?

Also, from what the ice core samples have shown (go here for a graph of what temperatures have been in the past 12,000 years as measured by ice core samples in Greenland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg ), today’s temperatures aren’t even close to being warmer than average – depending upon how much the temps may have increased in the past 60 years – today we probably aren’t much warmer than the average for the past 12,000 years. So why should we run around with our hair on fire like you’re encouraging us to do so when all of this has happened naturally in the past without mankind’s help?

And to think that we almost elected this man as President of the United States, and John Edwards as Vice President.

Gore wasn’t the only inconsistent one on that ticket. The Edwards theme of “Two Americas” was rather comical in light of his recently-built 20,000 square foot mansion. And that was before all the scandals and other collateral damage to their political positions. Did sound-bite campaigning lead America to take these guys seriously? Or was it more a case of media boosterism? Or what?

Fairbanks99 froths: May 2011 was warmer than average? Where the hell do you live? The western US is having a very cold spring and summer so far …

Step away from the Kool-Aid and do a little thinking.

Fairbanks99, you’ll be exceedingly glad to know that NOAA’s May 2011 “State of the Climate” data confirms your own personal observation … and confirms too that May 2011 was (from a global standpoint) the 300th warmer-than-average month in a row.

As for “Stepping away from the Kool-Aid and doing a little thinking” … more conservative-minded citizens would do that if media like PajamasMedia paid a little less attention to censoring, celebrity-bashing, and slogan-shouting … and paid a little more attention to the message from solid conservative organizations like the US Navy … like Boone-and-Crockett … like Ducks Unlimited … all of whom see with their own eyes that AGW is real.

You keep going on about PJM paying too much attention to “censoring, celebrity-bashing, and slogan-shouting” but I think it’s fair to point out a few things.
Celebrity bashing does indeed go on here; especially when they so richly deserve it (vid. Al Gore.) Sure, I see “slogan shouting” here too but then again shouting “AGW is real” falls into that category too and haven’t you been guilty of that? But as far as censoring goes, that’s completely groundless. What exactly has PJM censored? I mean after all, slogan shouting by ideologues such as yourself seem pretty free to post their droppings here without interference.

At least one PJM editor openly admits to censoring numerous posts, editing other posts secretly, and exposing names to public view without permission … and this editor asserts that these practices are sanctioned by PJM’s highest-level management.

That PJM embraced these practices showed poor judgment.

That PJM continues these practices shows worse judgment.

That PJM does not warn people shows the worst possible judgment.

If that’s what “conservatism” means with regard to PJM’s business practices … then why would any American want any part of such practices?

“If that’s what “conservatism” means with regard to PJM’s business practices … then why would any American want any part of such practices?”

I don’t know but obviously it hasn’t bothered you enough to stop coming here and posting again and again. It seems logical that someone as outraged as you pretend to be would avoid continued interactions on those ground alone.

“A global treaty to meet Mr. Gore’s policy goals isn’t a treaty: the changes such a treaty requires are so broad and so sweeping that a GGCT is less a treaty than a constitution for global government.”

Mr. Meade scores a direct bullseye here. This is the real goal and the real explanation behaind modern enviromentalism. If global warming is caused by the activities of mankind then it follows that all of mankind’s activities must be controlled in the name of reducing it. At the heart of enviromentalism is not a desire to “save the planet” but to “control the planet.” Fear of AGW is the stick with which our “eco-elites” seek to cudgel the rest of us into giving them unlimited power to organize our lives. How can it be otherwise? To allow human beings to make choices about what they do and how they use their property may mean that they will make the “wrong” choices which may then “endanger the planet.” Far better that our society be some sort of Oceania controlled by a benevolent elite so that human irresponsibility can be “controlled.” The problem with Al Gore is that he makes a laughable Big Brother. However this will not stop them from trying.

Whenever you are in a conversation with a fierce proponenet of AGW ask them “How many of our traditional Western liberties would you have us give up in the name of saving the planet?”

Chambers suggests: Whenever you are in a conversation with a fierce proponenet of AGW ask them “How many of our traditional Western liberties would you have us give up in the name of saving the planet?”

Sulfur is a component of one kind of coal. Using low sulfur coal or scrubbing high sulfur coal is childs play compared to sequestering CO2. Sulfur is a solid easily disposed of. CO2 is a gas and is much harder to contain. furthermore, CO2 is produced in every kind of energy production except wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric. But none of these technologies come even close to providing current and future power needs.

We even exhale CO2.

Fluorocarbons were used in refrigeration and aerosols. The problem was solved by finding a substitute. Again, relatively simple.

Pesticides are the same. We found substitutes.

Your expectations about preventing or controlling CO2 are completely unrealistic.

I’m still waiting for your response to my post about water vapor being a greater greenhouse gas than CO2.

Johninohio, with respect, you ought to reflect that we humans would all still be chipping flints into stone axes if everyone were as technologically pessimistic as you … and we’d all still be watching our children die of smallpox and polio if everyone were as fatalistic as you.

The cheap alternatives you mention were developed *because* market forces were harnessed to clean-up the air, land, and water. And what sober-minded conservative organizations like Ducks Unlimited and the US Navy understand perfectly well … is that market strategies can work just as well to secure our children’s health and prosperity … as they have worked to secure America’s health and prosperity in past decades.

As for water vapor … well … there’s considerable discussion of it in Hansen’s latest analysis … pages 5,9,26, and 46!

It’s pessimism only if you seriously believe CO2 is a danger. I don’t.

As for Hansen’s comments about water vapor, the interpretation I get is that Co2 warming the planet causes the rise in water vapor. How can that be when water vapor already in the atmosphere produces more of a greenhouse effect than CO2 does. In that case, only the water vapor is needed to cause an increase in water vapor!

Furthermore, I challenge you to provide a coherent translation of this quote from his paper:

“13.1. Human-made climate forcing versus solar variability
Argo floats achieved good global distribution just in time for a valuable comparison of the human-made climate forcing versus solar irradiance. The last half of the first decade of the 21st century witnessed the deepest most prolonged solar minimum in the period of accurate solar monitoring (Fig. 21), which began in the late 1970s.
Earth’s energy imbalance during the solar minimum provides a test of the effect of solar variability on climate, including all indirect effects. Earth’s energy imbalance during the solar minimum is the net effect of reduced solar irradiance and all other climate forcings, principally the net human-made climate forcing. Volcanic aerosols added a small negative forcing that assisted the negative solar forcing.
Human-made forcing has been growing for more than a century and thus has partially expended itself, causing most of the 0.8°C global warming of the past century. However, because of the ocean’s thermal inertia, the climate system has only partly responded to the human-made forcing. The portion of the human-made forcing that has not been responded to constitutes a continuing forcing with positive sign (incoming energy exceed outgoing energy). During the past 5-6 years the deep solar minimum and small amount of volcanic aerosols caused a negative forcing. Precise measurement of the planetary energy imbalance allows us to determine whether the positive human-made forcing or negative natural forcing is larger.
A verdict is provided by the ocean heat uptake found by von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011), 0.42 W/m2 for 2005-2010, averaged over the planet. Adding the small terms for heat uptake in the deeper ocean, warming of the ground and atmosphere, and melting of ice, the net planetary energy imbalance exceeded +0.5 W/m2 during the solar minimum.
This dominance of positive climate forcing during the solar minimum, and the consistency of the planet’s energy imbalance with expectations based on estimated human-made climate forcing, together constitute a smoking gun, a fundamental verification that human-made climate forcing is the dominant forcing driving global climate change. Positive net forcing even during solar minimum assures that global warming will be continuing on decadal time scales.
13.2. Climate response function
Earth’s climate response function, the fraction of global surface temperature response to a climate forcing as a function of time, is a fundamental characteristic of the climate system that needs to be accurately determined. Climate models indicate that the response function has a characteristic shape, achieving almost half of its equilibrium response quickly, within about a decade. The remainder of the response is exceedingly slow. We suggest, however, that this recalcitrance is exaggerated in many climate models.
42
GISS modelE-R, for example, achieves only 60 percent response in 100 years. At least several other climate models used in IPCC (2001, 2007) studies have comparably slow response. Diagnostic studies of the GISS ocean model show that it mixes too efficiently, which would cause its response function to be too slow. Therefore we tested alternative response functions that achieve 75 percent and 90 percent of their response after 100 years. In each case we let current human-made aerosol forcing have the magnitude that yields closest agreement with observed global warming over the past century.
The amount of energy pumped into the ocean by a positive (warming) forcing depends on the response function, because this energy source (the planetary energy imbalance) shuts down as the surface temperature approaches its equilibrium response. Thus precise measurement of the rate of ocean heat uptake can help discriminate among alternative response functions.
Ocean heat uptake during the Argo era agrees well with the intermediate response function (75 percent response in 100 years) and is inconsistent with either the slow or fast response functions. We conclude that actual climate response is not as recalcitrant as many models suggest. As the Argo record lengthens, knowledge of the real world response function can be refined. The depth distribution of warming will be especially useful for confirming the nature of the climate response function, characterizing its recalcitrant response, and aiding development of ocean models.”

The analysis that Hansen and his colleagues present suggests that AGW is even stronger than most scientists believe, because two effects are partially masking it at the present time: (1) sulphate particles from coal-burning (which slightly shades the earth), and (2) the present solar minimum (which slightly dims the sun). When these two effects saturate and/or end, AGW will progress at a pace significantly faster than presently foreseen.

Should Hansen’s forecast prove to be correct, conservatives and liberals alike will be challenged to identify a constructive response.

Sulphate emissions were mitigated by a 1990 cap-and-trade, market-driven program … that was highly successful.

The same act addressed lead poisoning in America’s children. By 1995, the percentage of U.S. children with elevated blood-lead levels has dropped from 88.2% in the 1970s to 4.4%, according to data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Whose was the “watermelon” administration conceived and implemented this immensely successful emission-control program? You know that name well — George H. W. Bush.

Assuming you’re correct in saying, “Sulphate emissions were mitigated by a 1990 cap-and-trade … program…” instead of through EPA regulations, that doesn’t make it a free market solution. If you think that when government gets involved in the free market by creating market manipulating legislation, the market is still free, you are delusional. Besides,this comment of yours is nothing more than a distraction from the central issue being dicussed. What does this have to do with the practicality or need of controlling CO2?

Your “devastating” revelation that the “G.W. Bush” administration was responsible for these safety regulations only reveals your false belief that my motive for opposing CO2 emission controls is intended to support a Republican party political ploy. I’m an independent. To me Bush and the Republican party are little more than the moderate wing of the Democrat party.

You seem to be avoiding the question. As trite as it is to say – in regard to acid rain and flurocarbon emissions “that was then and this is now.” The present-day enviromental movement and, in particular, the AGW side of things, are focusing not on the substances you mention but carbon emissions. I’m only a humble country lawyer (well small city) but I seem to recall that carbon of some sort is produced by nearly every human activity and makes up a large chunk of the world.. (Hence the dreadful term “carbon footprint.”) Giving the government the authority to control “carbon emissions” seems like a blank check to give them the authority to control pretty much everything (sort of the way the Commerce Clause has been expanded to increase the power of the federal government.)

Also my post concerned the trend toward what can only be called “eco-totalitarianism.” We have seen many cases where those who disagree with the AGW global warming thesis have been labeled “deniers” in an effort to equate them with deniers of the Holocaust. Don’t you agree that such “deniers” should be silenced (or at least denied forums) lest they convince too many of us to ignore the crisis leading which will in turn to the destruction of the world? Indeed shouldn’t political organizations that oppose the AGW argument be broken up because they present a “clear and present danger” all of us? We have seen throughout American history where violations of the most basic Western rights were instituted on an emergency basis in the name of the “greater good.” Think of Lincoln’s suspension or habeas corpus or the internment of Japanese-Americans by FDR’s government in World War II. These were very limited emergencies when compared to the “end of human existence as we know it.”

America’s founders did indeed respect compromise and the deliberations that led to the drafting of the Constitution are reflective of that. However they were also wary of excessive concentrations of governmental power which is why we have both vertical and horizontal separation-of-powers. Power that is taken in the name of “saving the planet” is power that can be applied anywhere and to any situation. And, as Lord Acton famously observed, power is corruptive. I would add a codicil to this to the effect that such power is particularly corruptive when exercised through a vast and impersonal bureaucratic apparatus that must inevitably come into being to control global warming.

My brother-in-law, a long-time agronomist, scoffs that “acid rain” was a fake problem, solved mainly by the newspapers’ discontinuing coverage. All the “pesticides” scares were likewise unproven problems, many subsequently disproved, though many plaintiff’s lawyers became wealthy. The fluorocarbons destroying the earth’s ozone layer? How quickly it recovered, apparently, when new and untested substances were substituted for fluorocarbons.

Is it possible these “problems” were solved merely by the fact that they were never problems to begin with? Sort of like Global Cooling and the Coming Ice Age I grew up with? Scientists proclaimed it, Time Magazine featured it on its cover… and now it’s over, replaced by… Global Warming/Climate Change.

Only this time, Government’s big enough to cure it. Thank goodness they didn’t cure the Global Cooling, huh? They’d be kicking previous administrations for over-kill, and for causing… the globe to warm and the climate to change!

Very well put! As a matter of historical record all reformers need a crisis to serve as the basis for their reforms. Global warming is the “promised land” for reformers since it is a crisis that potentially involves everything on the planet. It sure feels like a go-for-broke grasp for power among our transnational elites, most of whom actually know as much about climate change as I do about the current Top 20 pop songs. (Do they still have a Top 20?)

Am the only one who has noticed that even the “global warming” crowd has pushed Al Gore into the background? It used to be the media swarmed all over him, now he makes and speech and it barely gets mentioned anywhere. Its as though his even his own follwers have pushed him aside.

None of this matters. Somehow it has become accepted dogma that CO2 is a pollutant and all of Government is now intent on stopping that pollution. The newly Marxist-ized EPA will see to it that stringent (and the more expensive the better) curbs are put on CO2 pollution; oil and coal will be demonized. Windmills (and are THEY ugly!) and solar panels (ditto!) will be worshipped as our saviors, even as they take productive land out of productive use, whether for agriculture or recreation.

Al Gore could step off a skyscraper’s roof, leaving behind a suicide note admitting his deception, and The Government’s mission to destroy our economy, our lifestyles, and our freedom would proceed apace without a hiccup. Big Government’s on a roll; I don’t know what could stop it now.

It’s not over till they say it’s over. How ’bout let’s elect someone likely to say, “It’s over!” Preferably someone who will be able to purge the various bureaucracies of the mindless Marxists now running them.

Science and political persuasion are so interwoven that one could hardly tell whore from hat rack. Physics is about the search for the truth, and politics under the disguise of leadership is about successful parasitism.
It occurs to me that the political clout of the Eco-nuts/facists/opportunists stems from their tax free lobbyist status, which preaches the promotion of science, yet violates that tax status by political campaigning. Perhaps the IRS is the most operant solution to liberating science from the poly-ticks. Until then, we are at the mercy of junk science, the 7 deadly sins, and Chicken Little persuasions of the Gorebinators.

ConservativeWanderer asks: You keep saying it’s about the science … so why bother posting that list of non-scientific organizations [like the Boone and Crockett Club] ?

ConservativeWanderer, mebbe you had better take a peek at the Boone and Crockett Club’s founders:

Theodore Roosevelt was a firsthand witness to the near decimation of one of our nation’s most valuable resources — its wildlife. When he committed himself to restoring America’s wildlands he did so with characteristic zeal. Founding the Boone and Crockett Club was one of his first steps. Working with Club Members George Bird Grinnell, General William Tecumseh Sherman, Gifford Pinchot, and twenty other visionaries comprised of outdoor sport enthusiasts, scientists, military and political leaders, explorers, artists, writers and industrialists, the foundation for the world’s greatest conservation system was laid.

Now you tell me, ConservativeWanderer … let’s put the Boone and Crocket founders up on the debating stage … next to the present crop of politicians … Republican *or* Democrat … and you tell *me* who comes off looking better.

Seems to me like America could use a whole lot more conservative candidates of the Boone and Crockett variety … fore-sighted, science-minded, nature-minded, and enterprise-minded candidates …

… and a whole lot less of the silly, ignorant, slogan-shouting, inside-the-Beltway, know-nothing variety of politicians that *call* themselves conservative … but aren’t worthy to shine the shoes of the leaders who created Boone and Crockett.

Sorry pal but not that impressed. Like most people I greatly admire Theodore Roosevelt but he was no “conservative.” TR was one of the leading lights of the late-19th Century Progressive (large “P”) movement which sought, among other things, to radically reform society on a “scientific” basis as proposed by by the “best people in society.” Many Progressives adhered to a paleolithic form of enviromentalism so that they could be assurred that “wide open spaces” would be preserved from the encroachment of lower-class immigrant hoards arriving in the U.S. at the turn of the century. A disturbing number of progressives were all for eugenics as a way of “improving the stock” of human beings and weeding out “inferior classes.” (Before you get too apoplectic I fully concede the the Progressives did great work in eliminating child labor, improving public schools and providing aid to the poor among other accomplishments.)

The Progressive enviromentalism typified by orginizations like the Boone and Crockett Club was not so much scientific as snobbish. It was intended to preserve nature so that an enlightened and elect few could “appreciate it.” One hangover from this has been the increase in complaints in recent years that national parks are overused and the general public should only have limited access to them. This doesn’t mean that they were bad people but this approach has been replicated by our presnet day “Green” movements who increasingly view human beings (and democratic government) both as an inconvenience and of a lesser degree of importance when compared to “nature.”

Chambers, yer dodg’in the question of whether the likes of TR would look mighty good on-stage … compared to the present gang of dwarves that Americans have to choose from.

Just like Johninohio is dodg’in the question of whether the cap-and-trade markets established by the Clean Air act didn’t work mighty well at controlling sulphate, nitrous oxide, and lead emissions.

Just like Fairbanks99 is dodg’in the question of whether the data clearly shows that the Earth is gettin’ hotter.

Just like DrBukk is dodg’in the question of whether AGW has solid foundations articulated by the Navy’s Admiral Titley.

All this dodg’in makes conservatism look weak … for a good reason … AGW denialism is a peculiarly weak brand of conservatism … a brand that is popular with the media and the weak-minded … but weak in principles and weak in practice.

The folksy patter (dodg’in? gettin’?) notwithstanding you are still not addressing any of my points. If AGW exists then how can enviromentalists call for anything less than the total restructuring of all human affairs? Such a call must invariably involve limitations in what we consider basic civil rights. Can enviromentalists really take a chance that “the people” will disagree with “the experts” on this issue? Shouldn’t the nostrums prescribed by the experts to deal with global warming be forced on the public whether they like it or not? (I’m sure Teddy would have said “DEEEELIGHTED!”)

A refusal to be stampeded into swallopwing the AGW thesis wholesale is not a sign of weakness by any means. It is a sign of mature judgement when dealing with a project that seeks to fundamentally alter the relationship between the citizen and the state. You may say this is unscientific and narro-minded. Perhaps. All I know is that the last couple of hundred years have been littered with the bodies produced by political movements that have sought to redefine society on “scientific principles”, usually based on the “best professional advice.” I apologize for using a Nazi reference but Josef Mengele had a Ph.D. and he was certain that he was right too. Was he?

Is there a science of politics? Chambers, I have to align myself with the “nutjobs” who claim there *is* such a science. In particular, my own political beliefs are aligned near-perfectly with certain “nutjobs” who wrote this:

The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients.

The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times.

They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.

Their names were Hamilton, Madison, and Jay … and the above passage is from The Federalist #9

Since 1950, the number of heat waves has increased and widespread increases have occurred in the numbers of warm nights. The extent of regions affected by droughts has also increased as precipitation over land has marginally decreased while evaporation has increased due to warmer conditions. Generally, numbers of heavy daily precipitation events that lead to flooding have increased, but not everywhere.

These trends have continued in the subsequent four years, in that that last 300 months in a row have had above-average global temperature.

So on the evidence, the IPCC has called it right so far.

Strong science-minded conservatism welcomes this opportunity to show adaptability and flexibility in dealing with AGW’s reality.

Bravo! I yield to no one in my admiration of the principles of the Founders as expressed in “The Federalist.” (BTW – Madison would later back off on his support for a strong federal government as expressed in his contributions to “The Federalist” in favor of the state’s rights position developed by Jefferson.)

However I am now sure that you are intentionally evading my queestion even if you do have an admirable grasp of what used to be called schoolboy civics. We do have a wonderful system of checks-and-balances and that is precisely what the AGW crowd cannot stand and would like to undermine in the name of “science.” There is a growing literature on the enviromental Left to the effect that our republican institutions stand in the way of addressing “climate change” and therefore should be suspended or abolished. As mentioned above this sort of thing is not unknown in American history in times of national crisis or emergency. My argument is that enviromentalists want to use “climate science” to promote such a state of emergency so that the ordinary restraints of the Constitution can be ignored. If you think it can’t happen then ask those prisoners denied habeas corpus during the Civil War, or the victims of the Palmer Raids in 1918 or the Japanese interned in WWII.

Global Warming (or whatever it’s called now) is the greatest potential crisis of all since it involves the “survival of the planet.” The goal of the enviromental Left will be to use this “continuing crisis” in the same way that Wilson used World War I and FDR used World War II to evade the restraints imposed by the Constitution in many areas. Were they wrong? Well a lot of what they did was certainly questionable although justified at the time in the name of “necessity.” However wars are finite events (even though they may seem to go on forever.) The atmosphere is with us always and the real enviromental agenda is to elevate the state of the climate into a never-ending crisis that will justify the final end of the restraints envisioned by Hamilton and his colleagues. By the way- As a physicist what to you think of Werner Heisenberg and his work intended to create an atomic bomb for Nazi Germany?

Now who’s dodg’n an’ weav’n? When will you ever deal with the points that chambers has made? Never, apparently. You might as well go away. you don’t have enough credibility left to make it worth arguing with you. Your intellectual dishonesty is manifest.

Johninohio, now that Chambers’ posts have started talking about Nazis, “Godwin’s Law” applies!

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once a comparison to Nazis is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.

You are right to a limited extent. – Appeals to Nazi extremism are too easy too make. However those who use the “Godwin’s Law” gambit are also guilty of choosing a rather solopistic strategy of trying to close off an argument. Also I hadn’t realized that there were such things as “Big Carbon carpetbaggers.” This is rather an inexact term since carpetbaggers are generally regarded as persons who come uninvited into one’s space to do their mischeif.

How about this for a methaphor? A review of Mao’s Cultural Revolution when the Chairman let loose the idealogues of China to completely remake society in keeping with Party principles. The goals of the Cultural Revolution were to remake Chinces society from the ground up according to a rigid agenda. AGW and most of the enviromental check-list calls for exactly the same thing in the name of reducing global warming. One of the hallmarks of the Cultural Revolution was, shall we say, impatience with any views that did not comport with those of the idealogues. The “science” of global warming is not settled at all and is at least open to debate. Once again I ask, how can those who are committed to the AGW argument tolerate any forum for countervailing views?

It looks like you represent the increasingly mainstream view that such sentiments cannot be tolerated and will indeed have to be forcibily suppressed – somehow. You would not do it yourself – After all you are probably a decent person but you seem to expect that someone will do it for you. You may be saddened and condemn retrictions on freedom of discussion but you would be willing to tolerate them in the name of “the greater good.” So again I ask – Should persons who make reasonable arguments against the existence of man-made global warming be allowed equal time in expressing their views?

Chambers, instead of a stretched analogy to Maoist China, why not consider a close analogy to chlorocarbon and fluorocarbon pesticide regulation and EPA SuperFund clean-up?

More generally, economists universally recognize the following principles:

* mathematics establishes that markets can fail,

* science shows us how markets fail,

* history gives us examples of failed markets

When markets fail, wise governance imposes prudent checks-and-balances—… it’s not complicated (although the details are complicated)! Indeed, the American Constitution is comprised almost wholly of such checks-and-balances.

That’s why faith in pure markets is like faith in pure communism, faith in the Kind, or faith in the imminent arrival of the Messiah, or faith in the robustness of the local ecology—… throughout history, these faiths have always been disappointed—… and indeed, often have led to disaster.

The original American brand of conservatism (as conceived and practiced by the Founders) recognizes the limitations of the above faiths, and therefore, embraces the practical necessity of checks-and-balances.

Boy you really are off-topic but I’ll play along. Markets cannot “fail.” Markets are impersonal forces without anthromorphic qualities. In respect to human beings are there good or bad outcomes but the market itself never fails – It just “is.” Markets exist in the same way that physics does. I’m not particularly thrilled by the law of gravity since it prevents me from soaring like a pudgy eagle. However I must accept this limitation and can’t realistically look to government to pass legislation that will enable me to ignore gravity. The physics that produced the atomic bomb are regrettable in human terms but “physics” itself has nothing to do with it. (A point made by, among others, Edward Teller.)

When John Maynard Keynes first proposed government deficit spending as a means of climbing out of the Depression he was warned of long-runs effects of accumulating government debt. Keynes quipped that “In the long run we are all dead.” Well Keynes certainly is dead and the “long-run” seems about over particularly in places like Greece and Ireland.

Another point to remember is that we haven’t had “pure markets” since at least World War I. Woodrow Wilson anticipated Mussolini in organizing business into government-regulated cartels under the aegis of the War Planning Board led by Bernard Baruch. This concept was revived by FDR in the New Deal via the National Recovery Act and other legislation. Of course since that time business and industry has worked under a growing mountain of regulations and rules. In many cases these rules have been written by Big Businesses themselves since the overall effect of government regulation is always to sqeeze out smaller competitiors and make it difficult for new businesses to enter into a particular field. There are enormous costs associated with this that are passed on to the consumer and which have the effect of skewing “the market.” Once upon a time Bill Gates had only one or two lobbyists in Washington representing the intrests of Microsoft. Then came the famous anti-trust lawsuit which took place lagely because Gates was a Washington “outsider.” Since the settlment Microsoft employs an army of hundreds of lobbyists, lawyers and influence-peddlars to avoid a repeat. None of this has anything to do with the classical definition of “the market” but it certainly has an effect on how the market operates.

The environmentalists have won, even if Al “massage client #9″ goes away. Regulations that are ruining our way of life are sprouting like weeds, every city and town has an economic development and sustainability plan, and every business tries to portray itself as being greener than the next. The following things now do not work properly, are banned, and/or are becoming more and more expensive, and are being replaced with inferior alternatives: Washing machines, toilets, light bulbs, dishwashers, laundry and dishwasher detergents, air conditioners, asthma inhalers, refrigerators, shopping bags, insecticides, paint, gasoline, preservatives, plastics, dryers, children’s sleepwear, and probably many other things we don’t even know about yet. Our economy as a whole will be destroyed by central planning.

It is getting worse every year. This nonsense is ruining our standard of living, and the hardest hit are the poor. Enviro-nuts won’t be happy until we are living in cold dark caves, walking everywhere, and beating our clothes on river rocks to get them clean. It seems to me they are winning, and the public continue to be led like sheep to the slaughter.

Thanks for your recommendation of the article by Dr. Hansen. Is he the same Hansen sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)?

Hansen asserted in the article you cited (that was extracted by Chambers, I think) that “Human-made forcing has been growing for more than a century and thus has partially expended itself, causing most of the 0.8°C global warming of the past century.”

It seems to this observer that the generally accepted, and often-published, figure in the latter 1990s was a warming of 1°C since the beginning of the past century, i.e., since 1900. Did Hansen find himself compelled to adjust this downward because of the significant cooling over the past decade? Here in the mid-South, we had some of the coldest weather on record and record snowfall, this past Winter, as omne small example of significant cooling.

If memory serves me, of that 0.8°C, it was also determined that 0.7°C took place by 1940, and then there was a long period of cooling that extended on into the 1970s and gave rise to many scientific proclamations of an imminently looming danger of a new Ice Age.

Please explain the rapidity with which the climate was warming prior to the 1940s – - 0.7°C over those 4 decades; and that leaves us with 0.1°C since then in the succeeding 70 years until 2011. Imagine how terribly the SUVs, Hummers, and F-150s must have been polluting back then!

Perhaps it is Worth Considering …, for skeptical-minded folks who put no stock whatsoever in physical theory, but repose their trust solely in data, I recommend McShane and Wyner’s review A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?. McShane and Wyner are statisticians, *not* scientists.

The gist of their purely statistical analysis is:

(1) The “blade” of the “hockey stick” is robust and real.

(2) The “handle” of the “hockey stick” is more uncertain.

Other researchers (like Hansen), who *do* include radiation physics in their models, obtain tighter bounds on the “handle”.

That the main features of the “hockey stick” are real, few serious scientists doubt any more. See for example the YouTube video by the US Navy’s Chief Oceanographer, Admiral David Titley, PhD, titled I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic.

—-

A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies:
Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?
URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4002